The "Big Bang" and Random-Universe Theory

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Michael Anteski, Feb 23, 2016.

  1. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Believability is irrelevant. Does your model fit the observed facts better than the current model fits the observed facts?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    This is either very deep, or very deep shit. I lean towards the latter.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And as the history is science shows, that is no reason to believe in a theory.

    Just like when Newton refused to use mechanism in order to develop gravitation, so too having a neat hypothesis that explains physical phenomena does nothing for advancing physics if if cannot capture the measurable behavior of physical systems as well as existing theories.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page